adt_create_function_group

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a function group, optionally activates it, and returns the group URI and activation status. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing groups), permissions needed, or what happens if the name already exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each providing essential information: main action, prerequisite, naming constraint, and output. No unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most key aspects: action, naming, default package, activation, output. It could be more explicit about the transport behavior (e.g., 'if omitted and package is $TMP, no transport; otherwise you'll be asked'), but the schema already provides this detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default behavior for package ($TMP, local/no transport) and indicating output (URI and activation status). It reinforces the naming constraint already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a function group (FUGR) in a package' and mentions activation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that function modules must live inside a function group, establishing this as a prerequisite for other operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides usage context by noting the naming convention (Z*/Y* prefix) and the default package ($TMP, local/no transport). It advises that this tool should be used before creating function modules. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.